Bournemouth mum Gemma Moss believed to be first woman in Britain to die from cannabis poisoning

A MUM from Bournemouth is believed to have become the first woman in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.

Gemma Moss, a 31-year-old churchgoer who lived in Boscombe, collapsed on her bedroom floor after smoking a cannabis cigarette.

Miss Moss’ death was registered as cannabis toxicity and the coroner has recorded a verdict of death by cannabis abuse.

The devout Christian had frequently used cannabis, but had stopped for two years before her death in October.

She started using it again to help her sleep after becoming depressed and anxious due to breaking up with her boyfriend.

The Bournemouth inquest heard that Miss Moss smoked half a joint a night to help get her to sleep.

Her friend, Zara Hill, said they smoked about £20 worth of cannabis together in the week before her death.

On the night of October 28 Miss Moss, who had two sons, Tyler, 15, and Tessiah, eight, and a daughter, went to bed after rolling a joint.

She was found unresponsive the following morning by Chloe Wilkinson, the girlfriend of Miss Moss’ teenage son.

She called an ambulance to the flat in Boscombe, but Miss Moss was pronounced dead at the scene.

Dr Kudair Hussein, a pathologist, told the hearing: “The physical examination and the examination of various organs including the heart and the liver showed no abnormality that could account for her death.

“The level of canabinoids in the blood were 0.1 to 0.15 milligrams per litre, this is considered as moderate to heavy cannabis use.

“I looked through literature and it’s well known that cannabis is of very low toxicity.

“But there are reports which say cannabis can be considered as a cause of death because it can induce a cardiac arrest.”

Coroner Sheriff Payne asked Dr Hussein: “You are satisfied it was the affects of cannabis that caused her death.”

Dr Hussain replied: “Yes sir.”

The inquest heard Miss Moss grew up in London but moved to Bournemouth about five years ago.

She regularly attended the evangelical Citygate Church and was baptised there last year.

Her mother, Kim Furness, told the inquest: “She was really honest about cannabis because from where we come from it’s normal to smoke cannabis. She was trying to stop again.”

In recording a verdict that Miss Moss died from drug abuse, Mr Payne said: “The post mortem could find no natural cause for her death.

“With the balance of probability that it is more likely than not that she died from the effects of cannabis.”

RUSSELL White, a leader at the Citygate Church, said: “Gemma was a good mother and brought up her children mainly on her own.

“She was full of fun and loved life and loved coming to church. She was a committed member of the church and brought her children along.

“I think she came from a difficult background but she I think she was clean to a large degree in terms of drugs.

“She is very much missed and her death was a real shock to us.”

David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, said: “It is extremely rare and unusual for a coroner to rule death from cannabis abuse.

“In 40 years I have never come across deaths from cannabis alone. There have been cases where it has been combined with other drugs or alcohol.

“It has often been said that cannabis doesn't cause death. Users usually pass out before they can take enough cannabis to kill them.

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?rozmister

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

still very sad nevertheless

[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]still very sad neverthelessglendower2909

It is popularly believed that there has never been a death directly attributable to the use cannabis anywhere in the world - that is because of a toxic effect of cannabis on the body, Clearly, it is possible that somebody may have had an accident while intoxicated through cannabis use but that would be an indirect cause.

Science does support the principle that it is impossible to overdose on cannabis. See: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Effects_of_
cannabis#Toxicity

Cannabis is probably the least toxic therapeutically active substance known to man. Its Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is so high as to be virtually impossible to calculate but is believed to be between 1:20000 and 1:40000. Thus if 100mg of cannabis would produce an effect, between two to four kilos (taken at once) would be fatal. This is, of course, impossible.

Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is the ratio of effective dose for 50% of users (ED50) to lethal dose for 50% of users (LD50). The TR of alcohol is 1:20. TR of heroin is 1:5.

Also, cannabis works on our body because it modulates the endocannabinoid system which consts of a network of CB1 and CB2 receptors throughout the body and endocannabinoids which are the body's natural chemicals equivalent to the chemicals in the cannabis plant. The CB1 receptor is now believed to be the most prevalent receptor in the brain but does not exist in the brain stem which controls the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. This is why, unlike opiates, alcohol or other drugs, cannabis cannot depress basic life functions to the point of death.

Many doctors are unaware of the endocannabinoid system because it was only discovered in 1988 and so has only recently been documented in medical education. It is now believed to be the most important physiological system in our body, regulating the central nervous system, immune, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and reproductive systems. This is why mankind has found cannabis such a safe and effective medicine for at least 5,000 years for such a wide variety of conditions.

It is popularly believed that there has never been a death directly attributable to the use cannabis anywhere in the world - that is because of a toxic effect of cannabis on the body, Clearly, it is possible that somebody may have had an accident while intoxicated through cannabis use but that would be an indirect cause.
Indeed, the NHS publication 'A summary of the health harms of drugs' states: "No cases of fatal overdoses have been reported. No confirmed cases of human deaths". Source: Page 31, http://www.nta.nhs.u
k/uploads/healthharm
sfinal-v1.pdf
Science does support the principle that it is impossible to overdose on cannabis. See: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Effects_of_
cannabis#Toxicity
Cannabis is probably the least toxic therapeutically active substance known to man. Its Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is so high as to be virtually impossible to calculate but is believed to be between 1:20000 and 1:40000. Thus if 100mg of cannabis would produce an effect, between two to four kilos (taken at once) would be fatal. This is, of course, impossible.
Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is the ratio of effective dose for 50% of users (ED50) to lethal dose for 50% of users (LD50). The TR of alcohol is 1:20. TR of heroin is 1:5.
Also, cannabis works on our body because it modulates the endocannabinoid system which consts of a network of CB1 and CB2 receptors throughout the body and endocannabinoids which are the body's natural chemicals equivalent to the chemicals in the cannabis plant. The CB1 receptor is now believed to be the most prevalent receptor in the brain but does not exist in the brain stem which controls the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. This is why, unlike opiates, alcohol or other drugs, cannabis cannot depress basic life functions to the point of death.
Many doctors are unaware of the endocannabinoid system because it was only discovered in 1988 and so has only recently been documented in medical education. It is now believed to be the most important physiological system in our body, regulating the central nervous system, immune, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and reproductive systems. This is why mankind has found cannabis such a safe and effective medicine for at least 5,000 years for such a wide variety of conditions.PJ Reynolds

How very sad. But by the sounds of it the reason for here death has been pinned on cannabis use purely because they couldn't find any other reason for it? Surely the fact it has never been reported before in the UK indicates that it is an unlikely cause?

How very sad. But by the sounds of it the reason for here death has been pinned on cannabis use purely because they couldn't find any other reason for it? Surely the fact it has never been reported before in the UK indicates that it is an unlikely cause?BarrHumbug

simcal wrote:
Everything on this planet can be toxic in the right quantity, including water.
Rip

True. One of the moan cancer causing chemicals is oxygen. Can't live without it but every breath is potentially killing us.

[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote:
Everything on this planet can be toxic in the right quantity, including water.
Rip[/p][/quote]True. One of the moan cancer causing chemicals is oxygen. Can't live without it but every breath is potentially killing us.glendower2909

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

She died of heart failure.

I'm totally amazed that a MD would suggest cannabis as a cause of death?

People need to be told the difference between certain 'types'.

Smoke 'resin' & you're likely to be smoking commercial grade 'hash', known for being adulterated with all sorts of potentially toxic substances.

Even so called 'Skunk' can give you headaches etc if it's not flushed out etc leaving potentially toxic additives, used to increase growth etc.

This is dis information.

It's also another good reason to legalise & thus sell a product that's consistent.
Same thing goes for 'MDMA' or 'E's'.

Go to Holland & they will test drugs before you take them in clubs etc. Avoiding potential deaths.

Makes you wonder though, why when more & more experts, police officers etc call for some kind of controlled legal framework the Government WONT LISTEN?

If your' kid is going to take drugs on a recreational level-- plenty do, surely you want them to be 'Safe as possible'?
Oh let's not forget the many millions who take LEGAL narcotics 'Mummies Little Helpers', but that's OK as it has a Govt 'Stamp' & the massive drug companies supplying them!
The current laws have done NOTHING to stop drug consumption.

[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]She died of heart failure.
I'm totally amazed that a MD would suggest cannabis as a cause of death?
People need to be told the difference between certain 'types'.
Smoke 'resin' & you're likely to be smoking commercial grade 'hash', known for being adulterated with all sorts of potentially toxic substances.
Even so called 'Skunk' can give you headaches etc if it's not flushed out etc leaving potentially toxic additives, used to increase growth etc.
This is dis information.
It's also another good reason to legalise & thus sell a product that's consistent.
Same thing goes for 'MDMA' or 'E's'.
Go to Holland & they will test drugs before you take them in clubs etc. Avoiding potential deaths.
Prohibition & the 'Fake War On Drugs' is ineffective .
It's a bit like USA & Prohibition...TOTAL waste & INCREASES criminal activity.
Makes you wonder though, why when more & more experts, police officers etc call for some kind of controlled legal framework the Government WONT LISTEN?
If your' kid is going to take drugs on a recreational level-- plenty do, surely you want them to be 'Safe as possible'?
Oh let's not forget the many millions who take LEGAL narcotics 'Mummies Little Helpers', but that's OK as it has a Govt 'Stamp' & the massive drug companies supplying them!
The current laws have done NOTHING to stop drug consumption.stevobath

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

You do not need scientific or medical qualifications to be aware that this is now the first reported death from cannabis poisoning ever. Thinking it through:

lots of people use cannabis
It has been used for a very long time
Records of deaths giving causes have been kept for a very long time

Even just taking the records of deaths over the past 30 years in the USA, UK and Europe that's a lot of people, So the chances of you dying from cannabis poisoning must be very, very small. Far small than say dying from water poisoning, which some sources say upwards of 15 people die from annually.

[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]You do not need scientific or medical qualifications to be aware that this is now the first reported death from cannabis poisoning ever. Thinking it through:
lots of people use cannabis
It has been used for a very long time
Records of deaths giving causes have been kept for a very long time
Even just taking the records of deaths over the past 30 years in the USA, UK and Europe that's a lot of people, So the chances of you dying from cannabis poisoning must be very, very small. Far small than say dying from water poisoning, which some sources say upwards of 15 people die from annually.DeanFox

On 20 January 2004 the newspaper Daily Telegraph reported that cannabis was blamed as cause of death of a 36 year old British man. However, a review of the toxicological data and autopsy report by a Swiss expert revealed that there is no reason to assume that the sudden death of Lee Maisey in August 2003 was due to cannabis.

Switzerland/UK: Death was not caused by cannabis
On 20 January 2004 the newspaper Daily Telegraph reported that cannabis was blamed as cause of death of a 36 year old British man. However, a review of the toxicological data and autopsy report by a Swiss expert revealed that there is no reason to assume that the sudden death of Lee Maisey in August 2003 was due to cannabis.
http://www.cannabis-
med.org/english/bull
etin/ww_en_db_cannab
is_artikel.php?id=16
6Win Matthews

BarrHumbug wrote:
How very sad. But by the sounds of it the reason for here death has been pinned on cannabis use purely because they couldn't find any other reason for it? Surely the fact it has never been reported before in the UK indicates that it is an unlikely cause?

It has been reported before in the UK. She is the first woman supposedly but not the first man,

[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote:
How very sad. But by the sounds of it the reason for here death has been pinned on cannabis use purely because they couldn't find any other reason for it? Surely the fact it has never been reported before in the UK indicates that it is an unlikely cause?[/p][/quote]It has been reported before in the UK. She is the first woman supposedly but not the first man,debslin

What utter bullsh*t, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERDOSE ON CANNABIS.
Why do newspapers print this drivel, have they ever done research before printing this toilet paper? Scare tactics by middle aged fuddy duddies who think cannabis is the same as heroin and crack.

No wonder this country is nackered.

What utter bullsh*t, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERDOSE ON CANNABIS.
Why do newspapers print this drivel, have they ever done research before printing this toilet paper? Scare tactics by middle aged fuddy duddies who think cannabis is the same as heroin and crack.
No wonder this country is nackered.mr.taxpayer

In another newspaper site it says she had her benefit money stopped, her son was excluded from school and she was on prescribed medication for her depression. If she had all this going on, for whatever reason, I can see why she turned to something else to attempt to relax. Very sad.

In another newspaper site it says she had her benefit money stopped, her son was excluded from school and she was on prescribed medication for her depression. If she had all this going on, for whatever reason, I can see why she turned to something else to attempt to relax. Very sad.spooki

Bournehammer68 wrote: Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

You do not need scientific or medical qualifications to be aware that this is now the first reported death from cannabis poisoning ever. Thinking it through: lots of people use cannabis It has been used for a very long time Records of deaths giving causes have been kept for a very long time Even just taking the records of deaths over the past 30 years in the USA, UK and Europe that's a lot of people, So the chances of you dying from cannabis poisoning must be very, very small. Far small than say dying from water poisoning, which some sources say upwards of 15 people die from annually.

I'm not denying it's rare I'm saying that without the skills and knowledge and ACCESS to all the information and evidence it's very hard to judge whether this right or wrong. I can ASSUME based on the fact it's the first reported case that it's not true but when you assume you make an **** out of U and ME. The fact we previously believed something to be impossible based on the knowledge we had doesn't mean that it could never be possible.

You say the chances are very, very small - that still leaves a margin of possibility? How can we know this is not that statistical anomoly without a medical understanding of the evidence and access to it?

[quote][p][bold]DeanFox[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote: Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]You do not need scientific or medical qualifications to be aware that this is now the first reported death from cannabis poisoning ever. Thinking it through: lots of people use cannabis It has been used for a very long time Records of deaths giving causes have been kept for a very long time Even just taking the records of deaths over the past 30 years in the USA, UK and Europe that's a lot of people, So the chances of you dying from cannabis poisoning must be very, very small. Far small than say dying from water poisoning, which some sources say upwards of 15 people die from annually.[/p][/quote]I'm not denying it's rare I'm saying that without the skills and knowledge and ACCESS to all the information and evidence it's very hard to judge whether this right or wrong. I can ASSUME based on the fact it's the first reported case that it's not true but when you assume you make an **** out of U and ME. The fact we previously believed something to be impossible based on the knowledge we had doesn't mean that it could never be possible.
You say the chances are very, very small - that still leaves a margin of possibility? How can we know this is not that statistical anomoly without a medical understanding of the evidence and access to it?rozmister

The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at allGAHmusic

GAHmusic wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

No logic there GAHmusic ... bet half the "rule makers" are on drugs ????

[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all[/p][/quote]No logic there GAHmusic ... bet half the "rule makers" are on drugs ????JustForPoole

simcal wrote:
Everything on this planet can be toxic in the right quantity, including water.
Rip

You're right of course. The toxicity level for cannabis is believed to be around half a kilo in one sitting. You see this is the reason why anyone with any knowledge of the science understands that this is simple negative propaganda. The coroner should lose his position. I've never seen such a hatchet job in my entire life.

My thoughts are with the family. Terrible opportunism to use this person's tragedy as a means to forward political propaganda.

[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote:
Everything on this planet can be toxic in the right quantity, including water.
Rip[/p][/quote]You're right of course. The toxicity level for cannabis is believed to be around half a kilo in one sitting. You see this is the reason why anyone with any knowledge of the science understands that this is simple negative propaganda. The coroner should lose his position. I've never seen such a hatchet job in my entire life.
My thoughts are with the family. Terrible opportunism to use this person's tragedy as a means to forward political propaganda.SteveSim

Phixer wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate

ver'.

It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.

Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.

[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate
ver'.[/p][/quote]It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.
Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.SteveSim

It is well known that the medical and legal professions will very often stop looking for clues as soon as they detect cannabis. Just blame the cannabis and wrap the case up.

Black market cannabis is very often tainted with impurities, sometimes even horse tranquilizers are mixed in to make weak cannabis "stronger" and therefore more salable. I would not be at all surprised if that had happened in this case.

When cannabis is legalised the supply will be open to scrutiny by testing labs so the supply of tainted cannabis will dwindle away.

It is well known that the medical and legal professions will very often stop looking for clues as soon as they detect cannabis. Just blame the cannabis and wrap the case up.
Black market cannabis is very often tainted with impurities, sometimes even horse tranquilizers are mixed in to make weak cannabis "stronger" and therefore more salable. I would not be at all surprised if that had happened in this case.
When cannabis is legalised the supply will be open to scrutiny by testing labs so the supply of tainted cannabis will dwindle away.Andy_Smith_43

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.

[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.Wilkins111

For anyone interested in opening their eyes this recent study published in science magazine suggests that the boost in Pregnenolone following cannabis use, protects the brain from over intoxication. It is this reason, that the authors suggest, why NO DEATHS have ever been (correctly) attributed to cannabis intoxication:

http://www.sciencema
g.org/content/343/61
66/94

For anyone interested in opening their eyes this recent study published in science magazine suggests that the boost in Pregnenolone following cannabis use, protects the brain from over intoxication. It is this reason, that the authors suggest, why NO DEATHS have ever been (correctly) attributed to cannabis intoxication:
http://www.sciencema
g.org/content/343/61
66/94SteveSim

All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died.

That statement is unverifiable since we don't have death records for everyone in history who has ever used cannabis. I think what you mean is that no deaths have ever been recorded (though I would like so see some evidence of that: wikipedia of itself does not count as evidence).

I agree that pure cannabis is of low risk, but it is not utterly harmless. For example, it has harmful effects on the cardiovascular system. You can read this report in the BMJ if you want information on this: http://bit.ly/MAAmzM

[quote]All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. [/quote]
That statement is unverifiable since we don't have death records for everyone in history who has ever used cannabis. I think what you mean is that no deaths have ever been recorded (though I would like so see some evidence of that: wikipedia of itself does not count as evidence).
I agree that pure cannabis is of low risk, but it is not utterly harmless. For example, it has harmful effects on the cardiovascular system. You can read this report in the BMJ if you want information on this: http://bit.ly/MAAmzMAdrian XX

The level claimed to have been in her blood is 0.15 mg , equal to 150000 nano grams. I read the science paper below and I would say the highest level you could expect to find adjusting for strength of cannabis smoked and body weight would be a very approximate figure of 1400ng/ml in her blood. Considering how fast the cannabinoid levels fall off would the pathologist have to get a sample at the moment of death to get anywhere near the figure claimed? Hopefully someone who is actually good at maths or interpreting science papers can put me straight on this.

Please read page 2, 2.5 to 2.7

http://www.idmu.co.u
k/pdfs/drugtest.pdf

This coroner's report doesn't add up to me.
The level claimed to have been in her blood is 0.15 mg , equal to 150000 nano grams. I read the science paper below and I would say the highest level you could expect to find adjusting for strength of cannabis smoked and body weight would be a very approximate figure of 1400ng/ml in her blood. Considering how fast the cannabinoid levels fall off would the pathologist have to get a sample at the moment of death to get anywhere near the figure claimed? Hopefully someone who is actually good at maths or interpreting science papers can put me straight on this.
Please read page 2, 2.5 to 2.7
http://www.idmu.co.u
k/pdfs/drugtest.pdfstukaville

May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.

May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.glendower2909

glendower2909 wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.

Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of "unhappy self abuser's."

[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.[/p][/quote]Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of "unhappy self abuser's."glendower2909

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

Don't have to be a scientist, to READ.Your ignorance is NOT knowledge...

weed CANNOT kill you. Period.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

"9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."

Doctors also told us tobacco did not kill, leaded gas was ok, fluoride was good to drink, and mercury belong in your mouth.

[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]Don't have to be a scientist, to READ.Your ignorance is NOT knowledge...
weed CANNOT kill you. Period.
8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
"9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."
Source:US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 56-57.
http://druglibrary.n
et/olsen/MEDICAL/YOU
NG/young4.html
Doctors also told us tobacco did not kill, leaded gas was ok, fluoride was good to drink, and mercury belong in your mouth.nodster

glendower2909 wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.

Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of &quot;unhappy self abuser's."

If you bothered to read the comments people have been sympathetic to the family. Grow up, stop coming here to call people childish names and look into the matter. This coroner has let the family down.

You're the only person here who's had his comment filtered for using profanities, what does that tell you about the lack of respect you are showing this family?

[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.[/p][/quote]Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of "unhappy self abuser's."[/p][/quote]If you bothered to read the comments people have been sympathetic to the family. Grow up, stop coming here to call people childish names and look into the matter. This coroner has let the family down.
You're the only person here who's had his comment filtered for using profanities, what does that tell you about the lack of respect you are showing this family?SteveSim

glendower2909 wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.

Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of &quot;unhappy self abuser's."

If you bothered to read the comments people have been sympathetic to the family. Grow up, stop coming here to call people childish names and look into the matter. This coroner has let the family down.

You're the only person here who's had his comment filtered for using profanities, what does that tell you about the lack of respect you are showing this family?

Yes I have read all comments. You will note that I was first to comment on this sad story offering my condolences and saying how sad. Resulted in to date 19 likes. Next comment centered around questioning the veracity of the story and how it was sensationalist so far 139 likes. Does keenly sum up the mentality of most people on here. More minded to like a story slamming a newspaper headline than respecting the life of a young woman. And yes I say it again "self abuser's" the majority of you.

[quote][p][bold]SteveSim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.[/p][/quote]Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of "unhappy self abuser's."[/p][/quote]If you bothered to read the comments people have been sympathetic to the family. Grow up, stop coming here to call people childish names and look into the matter. This coroner has let the family down.
You're the only person here who's had his comment filtered for using profanities, what does that tell you about the lack of respect you are showing this family?[/p][/quote]Yes I have read all comments. You will note that I was first to comment on this sad story offering my condolences and saying how sad. Resulted in to date 19 likes. Next comment centered around questioning the veracity of the story and how it was sensationalist so far 139 likes. Does keenly sum up the mentality of most people on here. More minded to like a story slamming a newspaper headline than respecting the life of a young woman. And yes I say it again "self abuser's" the majority of you.glendower2909

I think I can accurately state that more people today will - sadly - die from the effects of alcohol and cigarettes than cannabis.

If it were legal and regulated like alcohol, the levels of cannabinoids would be safe. This medical examiner either has an agenda, or is grasping at straws.

For the record, I do not touch the stuff.

I think I can accurately state that more people today will - sadly - die from the effects of alcohol and cigarettes than cannabis.
If it were legal and regulated like alcohol, the levels of cannabinoids would be safe. This medical examiner either has an agenda, or is grasping at straws.
For the record, I do not touch the stuff.Yankee1

I attend the same church as Gemma, she was a beautiful woman who loved her kids very much. You could see God's love in her eyes. The fact is she is gone and her children have lost their mummy. How she died is not the issue here. RIP Gembells x

I attend the same church as Gemma, she was a beautiful woman who loved her kids very much. You could see God's love in her eyes. The fact is she is gone and her children have lost their mummy. How she died is not the issue here. RIP Gembells xsarahlois

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

Probably the same as yourself which accounts for your usual smug,arrogant comments on things you know little or nothing about

worth a second post?

I never claimed to be an expert in science and/or medicine but that's why I wouldn't make wild statements about this story. It's called being open minded and realising that when a newspaper reports a story they pull out the facts that cause the most outrage and run with them rather than give all the relevant information. Try it some time.

[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]Probably the same as yourself which accounts for your usual smug,arrogant comments on things you know little or nothing about[/p][/quote]worth a second post?[/p][/quote]I never claimed to be an expert in science and/or medicine but that's why I wouldn't make wild statements about this story. It's called being open minded and realising that when a newspaper reports a story they pull out the facts that cause the most outrage and run with them rather than give all the relevant information. Try it some time.rozmister

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.

No one has died of smoking before, they die of conditions brought on by smoking such as lung cancer. When their death is recorded it doesn't say smoking is the cause of death although the coroner may say it was a contributing factor. Does that mean smoking isn't deadly?

[quote][p][bold]Wilkins111[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.[/p][/quote]No one has died of smoking before, they die of conditions brought on by smoking such as lung cancer. When their death is recorded it doesn't say smoking is the cause of death although the coroner may say it was a contributing factor. Does that mean smoking isn't deadly?rozmister

People posting about overdosing and LD50 need to realise the difference between an overdose and an adverse reaction. You can have an adverse reaction to a single 300mg aspirin tablet, but that is not the same thing as an overdose.

The question is: how common are adverse reactions to cannabis?

People posting about overdosing and LD50 need to realise the difference between an overdose and an adverse reaction. You can have an adverse reaction to a single 300mg aspirin tablet, but that is not the same thing as an overdose.
The question is: how common are adverse reactions to cannabis?Adrian XX

Biggest load of rubbish I've ever read. Come on Echo, you can do better than that.
So let's see; she used to smoke it but gave up (never having died at any point back then). She smokes a few joints over the course of a week, then wakes up dead. And the pathologist, in lieu of finding any other cause of death puts it down to 'cannabis toxicity'? What on earth is HE smoking?
This isn't heroin, you don't lose your tolerance after not having used for a time, then misjudge a dose and OD.
This doctor has either been grossly misrepresented or this is the most shocking bit of journalism I've read since Princess Diana.
PS: What in the name of dog does her Christianity have to do with the price of fish? Not one mention but two!
Boooooo.

Biggest load of rubbish I've ever read. Come on Echo, you can do better than that.
So let's see; she used to smoke it but gave up (never having died at any point back then). She smokes a few joints over the course of a week, then wakes up dead. And the pathologist, in lieu of finding any other cause of death puts it down to 'cannabis toxicity'? What on earth is HE smoking?
This isn't heroin, you don't lose your tolerance after not having used for a time, then misjudge a dose and OD.
This doctor has either been grossly misrepresented or this is the most shocking bit of journalism I've read since Princess Diana.
PS: What in the name of dog does her Christianity have to do with the price of fish? Not one mention but two!
Boooooo.DaveStalker

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.

No one has died of smoking before, they die of conditions brought on by smoking such as lung cancer. When their death is recorded it doesn't say smoking is the cause of death although the coroner may say it was a contributing factor. Does that mean smoking isn't deadly?

Erm... this article doesn't say she died as a result of conditions brought on by smoking cannabis. It says she died of cannabis poisoning.
And that's kind of what we're disputing here...

[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Wilkins111[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.[/p][/quote]No one has died of smoking before, they die of conditions brought on by smoking such as lung cancer. When their death is recorded it doesn't say smoking is the cause of death although the coroner may say it was a contributing factor. Does that mean smoking isn't deadly?[/p][/quote]Erm... this article doesn't say she died as a result of conditions brought on by smoking cannabis. It says she died of cannabis poisoning.
And that's kind of what we're disputing here...DaveStalker

i dont smoke, i rarely touch alcohol and i dont take any drugs unless its to ease pain and ailments as directed. i hope to never touch anything that i do not need in my system, i have and will always cope just fine without anything like that.

i believe, only from what ive read about cannabis so far, is that its illegal despite being the least harmful substance to take out of the others. and its benefits for taking are that it is theraputic and relaxes or destresses people and helps them unwind and sleep.

its my theory, (feel free to explain why its wrong in a civil way)- is that if it were made legal, the already high number of deaths caused by careless driving/alcohol/subs
tance abuse etc may increase if people have smoked cannabis and become too lethargic, or its mixed badly with the things they took before which otherwise may not have done as much damage. therefore increasing the risk of death, and if it were to be legalised it would mean putting out more limits on the cigs and alcohol and laws of driving to prevent it.

but as i say i have had very little info.

R.I.P

i dont smoke, i rarely touch alcohol and i dont take any drugs unless its to ease pain and ailments as directed. i hope to never touch anything that i do not need in my system, i have and will always cope just fine without anything like that.
i believe, only from what ive read about cannabis so far, is that its illegal despite being the least harmful substance to take out of the others. and its benefits for taking are that it is theraputic and relaxes or destresses people and helps them unwind and sleep.
its my theory, (feel free to explain why its wrong in a civil way)- is that if it were made legal, the already high number of deaths caused by careless driving/alcohol/subs
tance abuse etc may increase if people have smoked cannabis and become too lethargic, or its mixed badly with the things they took before which otherwise may not have done as much damage. therefore increasing the risk of death, and if it were to be legalised it would mean putting out more limits on the cigs and alcohol and laws of driving to prevent it.
but as i say i have had very little info.
R.I.PUnderstated

Understated wrote:
i dont smoke, i rarely touch alcohol and i dont take any drugs unless its to ease pain and ailments as directed. i hope to never touch anything that i do not need in my system, i have and will always cope just fine without anything like that.

i believe, only from what ive read about cannabis so far, is that its illegal despite being the least harmful substance to take out of the others. and its benefits for taking are that it is theraputic and relaxes or destresses people and helps them unwind and sleep.

its my theory, (feel free to explain why its wrong in a civil way)- is that if it were made legal, the already high number of deaths caused by careless driving/alcohol/subs

tance abuse etc may increase if people have smoked cannabis and become too lethargic, or its mixed badly with the things they took before which otherwise may not have done as much damage. therefore increasing the risk of death, and if it were to be legalised it would mean putting out more limits on the cigs and alcohol and laws of driving to prevent it.

but as i say i have had very little info.

R.I.P

You raise some genuine concerns and seem genuinely open minded enough to discuss the subject. The truth is no-one can really say what will happen if we legalise in the UK. We do know that usage decreased overall in countries that have decriminalised or legalised such as The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. But we really don't know.

We do however already have laws in place for driving under the influence of cannabis. I'm sure most people would welcome roadside testing if it could be proven to be effective in determining impairment. We currently don't have a way of testing for that. Personally, I would welcome US style sobriety tests until something better comes along.

Speaking from personal experience only; when I smoke cannabis I don't really ever want to drink alcohol. Cannabis also doesn't make users 'lose their inhibitions' as alcohol does. People make very bad decisions when drunk but that is not the case with cannabis. You could take a look at how cannabis is being treated in the recently legalised state of Colorado in the US. This was published in the Telegraph a few days ago and demystifies things a bit for those who might see cannabis users as a criminal underclass: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=U2LBp8lW
-y0

And yes, I'd like to repeat my condolences for the family of Gemma and I apologise if I've caused any offense.

[quote][p][bold]Understated[/bold] wrote:
i dont smoke, i rarely touch alcohol and i dont take any drugs unless its to ease pain and ailments as directed. i hope to never touch anything that i do not need in my system, i have and will always cope just fine without anything like that.
i believe, only from what ive read about cannabis so far, is that its illegal despite being the least harmful substance to take out of the others. and its benefits for taking are that it is theraputic and relaxes or destresses people and helps them unwind and sleep.
its my theory, (feel free to explain why its wrong in a civil way)- is that if it were made legal, the already high number of deaths caused by careless driving/alcohol/subs
tance abuse etc may increase if people have smoked cannabis and become too lethargic, or its mixed badly with the things they took before which otherwise may not have done as much damage. therefore increasing the risk of death, and if it were to be legalised it would mean putting out more limits on the cigs and alcohol and laws of driving to prevent it.
but as i say i have had very little info.
R.I.P[/p][/quote]You raise some genuine concerns and seem genuinely open minded enough to discuss the subject. The truth is no-one can really say what will happen if we legalise in the UK. We do know that usage decreased overall in countries that have decriminalised or legalised such as The Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. But we really don't know.
We do however already have laws in place for driving under the influence of cannabis. I'm sure most people would welcome roadside testing if it could be proven to be effective in determining impairment. We currently don't have a way of testing for that. Personally, I would welcome US style sobriety tests until something better comes along.
Speaking from personal experience only; when I smoke cannabis I don't really ever want to drink alcohol. Cannabis also doesn't make users 'lose their inhibitions' as alcohol does. People make very bad decisions when drunk but that is not the case with cannabis. You could take a look at how cannabis is being treated in the recently legalised state of Colorado in the US. This was published in the Telegraph a few days ago and demystifies things a bit for those who might see cannabis users as a criminal underclass: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=U2LBp8lW
-y0
And yes, I'd like to repeat my condolences for the family of Gemma and I apologise if I've caused any offense.SteveSim

sarahlois wrote:
I attend the same church as Gemma, she was a beautiful woman who loved her kids very much. You could see God's love in her eyes. The fact is she is gone and her children have lost their mummy. How she died is not the issue here. RIP Gembells x

While it is tragic and our thoughts are naturally with the family and friends, Gemma's death is being used to score political points with a ridiculous and false coroner's report. _That_ is the issue.

It doesn't matter that the story focuses on Cannabis. It matters that this tragic loss is being used by the media as an excuse to further their political agenda.

Gemma deserves better and all the paper reporting this, in this sensationalist manner, should be ashamed.

[quote][p][bold]sarahlois[/bold] wrote:
I attend the same church as Gemma, she was a beautiful woman who loved her kids very much. You could see God's love in her eyes. The fact is she is gone and her children have lost their mummy. How she died is not the issue here. RIP Gembells x[/p][/quote]While it is tragic and our thoughts are naturally with the family and friends, Gemma's death is being used to score political points with a ridiculous and false coroner's report. _That_ is the issue.
It doesn't matter that the story focuses on Cannabis. It matters that this tragic loss is being used by the media as an excuse to further their political agenda.
Gemma deserves better and all the paper reporting this, in this sensationalist manner, should be ashamed.mandrill

Deaths from all drugs would be rare if they were legalised and regulated. Also drug dealers would become extinct and crime would go down they could the policr could then sspend time catching dangerous criminals

Deaths from all drugs would be rare if they were legalised and regulated. Also drug dealers would become extinct and crime would go down they could the policr could then sspend time catching dangerous criminalsportlandboi

GAHmusic wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

yes there is; it was upgraded because its a gateway drug. It is not uncommon for cannabis users to move on to other drugs, *that* was the rationale for the upgrading of canabis froma class C to a class B

[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all[/p][/quote]yes there is; it was upgraded because its a gateway drug. It is not uncommon for cannabis users to move on to other drugs, *that* was the rationale for the upgrading of canabis froma class C to a class BKiki1973

GAHmusic wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

yes there is; it was upgraded because its a gateway drug. It is not uncommon for cannabis users to move on to other drugs, *that* was the rationale for the upgrading of canabis froma class C to a class B

Alcohol and ciggerettes are gateway drugs as well

[quote][p][bold]Kiki1973[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all[/p][/quote]yes there is; it was upgraded because its a gateway drug. It is not uncommon for cannabis users to move on to other drugs, *that* was the rationale for the upgrading of canabis froma class C to a class B[/p][/quote]Alcohol and ciggerettes are gateway drugs as wellportlandboi

glendower2909 wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.

Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of &quot;unhappy self abuser's."

If you bothered to read the comments people have been sympathetic to the family. Grow up, stop coming here to call people childish names and look into the matter. This coroner has let the family down.

You're the only person here who's had his comment filtered for using profanities, what does that tell you about the lack of respect you are showing this family?

Yes I have read all comments. You will note that I was first to comment on this sad story offering my condolences and saying how sad. Resulted in to date 19 likes. Next comment centered around questioning the veracity of the story and how it was sensationalist so far 139 likes. Does keenly sum up the mentality of most people on here. More minded to like a story slamming a newspaper headline than respecting the life of a young woman. And yes I say it again "self abuser's" the majority of you.

you sound like a self abuser to me!

[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SteveSim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
May get me banned from here but sometimes things have to be said for what they are. I think that most of you are sad ****. Sorry state of affairs that the most liked posts on this story are those supporting or arguing of the positive benefits of canabis rather than those highlighting what a sad story this is. Young woman dies for what ever reason is tragic. Come on folks let's get real. I will try again. Sad story rip.[/p][/quote]Interesting. My previous comment was automatically censored by the site. Never knew that happened. Just in case you lost my train of thought I called all those more interested in canabis than this poor lady a load of "unhappy self abuser's."[/p][/quote]If you bothered to read the comments people have been sympathetic to the family. Grow up, stop coming here to call people childish names and look into the matter. This coroner has let the family down.
You're the only person here who's had his comment filtered for using profanities, what does that tell you about the lack of respect you are showing this family?[/p][/quote]Yes I have read all comments. You will note that I was first to comment on this sad story offering my condolences and saying how sad. Resulted in to date 19 likes. Next comment centered around questioning the veracity of the story and how it was sensationalist so far 139 likes. Does keenly sum up the mentality of most people on here. More minded to like a story slamming a newspaper headline than respecting the life of a young woman. And yes I say it again "self abuser's" the majority of you.[/p][/quote]you sound like a self abuser to me!thevoiceofreason1

Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.

Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.High Treason

Number of drug-related deaths where selected substances were mentioned on the death certificate, England and Wales, deaths registered between 1993-2012
http://www.ons.gov.u
k/ons/publications/r
e-reference-tables.h
tml?edition=tcm%3A77
-314585
Table 6a
Cannabis was mentioned in 18 deaths in 2012Dr Martin

muscliffman wrote:
Very sad of course and a rather unusual conclusion, but this has got 'Boscombe' trending in the national media for all the wrong reasons - yet again.

There's no good reason for Boscombe to trend!

[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
Very sad of course and a rather unusual conclusion, but this has got 'Boscombe' trending in the national media for all the wrong reasons - yet again.[/p][/quote]There's no good reason for Boscombe to trend!speedy231278

GAHmusic wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

30,000 deaths per year?, seems a bit high, care to provide a link?

[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all[/p][/quote]30,000 deaths per year?, seems a bit high, care to provide a link?Dr Martin

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

The internet!

[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]The internet!Avengerboy

reefer madness is alive and well.. anyone giving this propaganda a second of their attention is living in ignorance. she and a friend smoked 20 pounds worth of cannabis in a week, are you joking.. how anyone could attribute this to a death is beyond all sense of logic and reason. This 'news' paper should be ashamed of itself, using the death of an innocent mother as fear mongering.

reefer madness is alive and well.. anyone giving this propaganda a second of their attention is living in ignorance. she and a friend smoked 20 pounds worth of cannabis in a week, are you joking.. how anyone could attribute this to a death is beyond all sense of logic and reason. This 'news' paper should be ashamed of itself, using the death of an innocent mother as fear mongering.PalmsMcGee

"This patient suffered cardiac arrest shortly after eating carrots so therefore carrots are the cause of death. First woman in Britain to die of eating carrots."

Never laughed so hard in all my life.
This doctor should be struck off.
"This patient suffered cardiac arrest shortly after eating carrots so therefore carrots are the cause of death. First woman in Britain to die of eating carrots."CallOfDuty

High Treason wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.

Quite right ..... at the end of the day they are all drug addicts with all that goes along with being a drug addict. If it were that good it would be on the shelves of our local supermarket ... but no it is illegal and hence bought/sold with all the attached problems of users and dealers.

[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... at the end of the day they are all drug addicts with all that goes along with being a drug addict. If it were that good it would be on the shelves of our local supermarket ... but no it is illegal and hence bought/sold with all the attached problems of users and dealers.JustForPoole

Any drug, over the counter, prescribed by doctor or recreational can, in certain circumstances contribute towards premature death. We must not of course forget alcohol abuse which must cause many a premature demise although we are encouraged to ignore this fact.
I doubt that in this case cannabis was the major factor but we're all used to the Echo's attempts to emulate the Sun and Mirror in terms of half truths in the interest of sensationalism.

Any drug, over the counter, prescribed by doctor or recreational can, in certain circumstances contribute towards premature death. We must not of course forget alcohol abuse which must cause many a premature demise although we are encouraged to ignore this fact.
I doubt that in this case cannabis was the major factor but we're all used to the Echo's attempts to emulate the Sun and Mirror in terms of half truths in the interest of sensationalism.ekimnoslen

It seems to me that very, very few actually believe that this was a death by cannabis poisoning.

If this were a 50/50 on Who Wants to be a Millionaire and it went to ask the audience I would say it would be 99% "no it wasn't".

So why are the 1%, including the coroner and this 'interesting' pathologist, (who it might be suggested has seen too much Silent Witness?) going with 'it was'.

It seems to me that very, very few actually believe that this was a death by cannabis poisoning.
If this were a 50/50 on Who Wants to be a Millionaire and it went to ask the audience I would say it would be 99% "no it wasn't".
So why are the 1%, including the coroner and this 'interesting' pathologist, (who it might be suggested has seen too much Silent Witness?) going with 'it was'.scrumpyjack

however, you CAN'T DIE from OVERDOSE on marijuana alone. Yes that sounds like complete bullshiit but even the DEA state it: justice.gov/dea/pr/m
ultimedia-library/pu
blications/drug_of_a
buse.pdf#page=69 bitly link: 1(DOT)usa(DOT)gov/17
ozCQv

however, you CAN'T DIE from OVERDOSE on marijuana alone. Yes that sounds like complete bullshiit but even the DEA state it: justice.gov/dea/pr/m
ultimedia-library/pu
blications/drug_of_a
buse.pdf#page=69 bitly link: 1(DOT)usa(DOT)gov/17
ozCQvBournesouthmouth Downpokes

Ignorance is clearly running rife on this sad lady's tribute page. Go get yourself some free education and watch American Drug War: The Last White Hope and come back to us when you know something.

Besides the story clearly states cause of death, the break up with her boyfriend.

Run along now sheeple…

Ignorance is clearly running rife on this sad lady's tribute page. Go get yourself some free education and watch American Drug War: The Last White Hope and come back to us when you know something.
Besides the story clearly states cause of death, the break up with her boyfriend.
Run along now sheeple…Bournesouthmouth Downpokes

I am frankly stunned by some of the comments on here. There is clearly a big dividing line with those pro- cannabis and those against. The FACT is that a lovely young lady has died, leaving behind 3 of her babies. Ask yourself this, is this really the right forum to be having a debate on drugs, and whether cannabis kills or not? Remember, we are all individual. Some people die after taking a single, pure ecstacy pill, while others are perfectly fine. Is it safe, is it not bla bla bla. The fact remains that we all react differently to different things as we are all unique. I feel so sad for her family, friends, and ultimately her children. She sounded like a really good person who single handedly did her best for her children.

May she rest in peace, and shame on some of the posters on here.

I am frankly stunned by some of the comments on here. There is clearly a big dividing line with those pro- cannabis and those against. The FACT is that a lovely young lady has died, leaving behind 3 of her babies. Ask yourself this, is this really the right forum to be having a debate on drugs, and whether cannabis kills or not? Remember, we are all individual. Some people die after taking a single, pure ecstacy pill, while others are perfectly fine. Is it safe, is it not bla bla bla. The fact remains that we all react differently to different things as we are all unique. I feel so sad for her family, friends, and ultimately her children. She sounded like a really good person who single handedly did her best for her children.
May she rest in peace, and shame on some of the posters on here.blakieboy7

DaveStalker wrote:
Biggest load of rubbish I've ever read. Come on Echo, you can do better than that.
So let's see; she used to smoke it but gave up (never having died at any point back then). She smokes a few joints over the course of a week, then wakes up dead. And the pathologist, in lieu of finding any other cause of death puts it down to 'cannabis toxicity'? What on earth is HE smoking?
This isn't heroin, you don't lose your tolerance after not having used for a time, then misjudge a dose and OD.
This doctor has either been grossly misrepresented or this is the most shocking bit of journalism I've read since Princess Diana.
PS: What in the name of dog does her Christianity have to do with the price of fish? Not one mention but two!
Boooooo.

Spot on.......biggest load of old fanny I've read since the last piece of old fanny from the Echo................
.....

[quote][p][bold]DaveStalker[/bold] wrote:
Biggest load of rubbish I've ever read. Come on Echo, you can do better than that.
So let's see; she used to smoke it but gave up (never having died at any point back then). She smokes a few joints over the course of a week, then wakes up dead. And the pathologist, in lieu of finding any other cause of death puts it down to 'cannabis toxicity'? What on earth is HE smoking?
This isn't heroin, you don't lose your tolerance after not having used for a time, then misjudge a dose and OD.
This doctor has either been grossly misrepresented or this is the most shocking bit of journalism I've read since Princess Diana.
PS: What in the name of dog does her Christianity have to do with the price of fish? Not one mention but two!
Boooooo.[/p][/quote]Spot on.......biggest load of old fanny I've read since the last piece of old fanny from the Echo................
.....O'Reilly

blakieboy7 wrote:
I am frankly stunned by some of the comments on here. There is clearly a big dividing line with those pro- cannabis and those against. The FACT is that a lovely young lady has died, leaving behind 3 of her babies. Ask yourself this, is this really the right forum to be having a debate on drugs, and whether cannabis kills or not? Remember, we are all individual. Some people die after taking a single, pure ecstacy pill, while others are perfectly fine. Is it safe, is it not bla bla bla. The fact remains that we all react differently to different things as we are all unique. I feel so sad for her family, friends, and ultimately her children. She sounded like a really good person who single handedly did her best for her children.

May she rest in peace, and shame on some of the posters on here.

Your definition of babies is very different to mine....

[quote][p][bold]blakieboy7[/bold] wrote:
I am frankly stunned by some of the comments on here. There is clearly a big dividing line with those pro- cannabis and those against. The FACT is that a lovely young lady has died, leaving behind 3 of her babies. Ask yourself this, is this really the right forum to be having a debate on drugs, and whether cannabis kills or not? Remember, we are all individual. Some people die after taking a single, pure ecstacy pill, while others are perfectly fine. Is it safe, is it not bla bla bla. The fact remains that we all react differently to different things as we are all unique. I feel so sad for her family, friends, and ultimately her children. She sounded like a really good person who single handedly did her best for her children.
May she rest in peace, and shame on some of the posters on here.[/p][/quote]Your definition of babies is very different to mine....O'Reilly

GAHmusic wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

yes there is; it was upgraded because its a gateway drug. It is not uncommon for cannabis users to move on to other drugs, *that* was the rationale for the upgrading of canabis froma class C to a class B

So what is shandy then, a gateway drug for alcohol? So called gateway drugs were one of the governments best propaganda tools ever thought up, it can be applied with no solid evidence to practicaly anything so long as it's believable to the uninformed, a prime example of statistical manipulation.

[quote][p][bold]Kiki1973[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all[/p][/quote]yes there is; it was upgraded because its a gateway drug. It is not uncommon for cannabis users to move on to other drugs, *that* was the rationale for the upgrading of canabis froma class C to a class B[/p][/quote]So what is shandy then, a gateway drug for alcohol? So called gateway drugs were one of the governments best propaganda tools ever thought up, it can be applied with no solid evidence to practicaly anything so long as it's believable to the uninformed, a prime example of statistical manipulation.GAHmusic

Phixer wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate

ver'.

And you abstain from all drugs do you? Bravo to you if that is the, very unlikely, case. Never taken paracetamol, ibuprofen, aspirin, etc. ? If you are such a happy, content and healthy person as to never have the need to take any form of drug or medication you must be one of the rare few who do so. God bless you...just try not to martyr yourself too much.

[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate
ver'.[/p][/quote]And you abstain from all drugs do you? Bravo to you if that is the, very unlikely, case. Never taken paracetamol, ibuprofen, aspirin, etc. ? If you are such a happy, content and healthy person as to never have the need to take any form of drug or medication you must be one of the rare few who do so. God bless you...just try not to martyr yourself too much.handytrim

GAHmusic wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

30,000 deaths per year?, seems a bit high, care to provide a link?

Yea you're quite right 8748 in 2011

[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all[/p][/quote]30,000 deaths per year?, seems a bit high, care to provide a link?[/p][/quote]Yea you're quite right 8748 in 2011GAHmusic

High Treason wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.

Quite right ..... at the end of the day they are all drug addicts with all that goes along with being a drug addict. If it were that good it would be on the shelves of our local supermarket ... but no it is illegal and hence bought/sold with all the attached problems of users and dealers.

i think you will find the definition of addiction is "Addiction is the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences"

no adverse consequences then you are not an addict.
why do so many people presume they know what words mean when they clearly have no idea.

i do so love it when people comment on drugs they have never tried,until you do you have no idea what it does!

it was totally legal till misuse of drugs act 1971 the reason it is illegal now.....the government cannot tax it.

who was our greatest queen,Victoria a prolific user.

try for the facts not your fantasies

[quote][p][bold]JustForPoole[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... at the end of the day they are all drug addicts with all that goes along with being a drug addict. If it were that good it would be on the shelves of our local supermarket ... but no it is illegal and hence bought/sold with all the attached problems of users and dealers.[/p][/quote]i think you will find the definition of addiction is "Addiction is the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences"
no adverse consequences then you are not an addict.
why do so many people presume they know what words mean when they clearly have no idea.
i do so love it when people comment on drugs they have never tried,until you do you have no idea what it does!
it was totally legal till misuse of drugs act 1971 the reason it is illegal now.....the government cannot tax it.
who was our greatest queen,Victoria a prolific user.
try for the facts not your fantasiesthevoiceofreason1

High Treason wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.

As does exercise. Ban exercise!!!! No, it is not harmless. On an honest scientifically backed scale of harm it is about as harmful as caffeine. Caffeine being more harmful as you can actually overdose on it as many have done. NOBODY has yet to overdose and die from cannabis use as it is an impossibility. I would say the desperation is coming from those who have for decades tried to prove cannabis to be dangerous and addictive and have failed to do so because the actual science and facts aren't on their side so they have to resort to lies and bullying tactics. Thankfully those people have lost the battle and can now focus their unwanted attention on other matters such as sex before marriage, homosexuality, long hair and foreigners. Bringing in the Sheaves! Bringing in the Sheaves....

[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.[/p][/quote]As does exercise. Ban exercise!!!! No, it is not harmless. On an honest scientifically backed scale of harm it is about as harmful as caffeine. Caffeine being more harmful as you can actually overdose on it as many have done. NOBODY has yet to overdose and die from cannabis use as it is an impossibility. I would say the desperation is coming from those who have for decades tried to prove cannabis to be dangerous and addictive and have failed to do so because the actual science and facts aren't on their side so they have to resort to lies and bullying tactics. Thankfully those people have lost the battle and can now focus their unwanted attention on other matters such as sex before marriage, homosexuality, long hair and foreigners. Bringing in the Sheaves! Bringing in the Sheaves....handytrim

Kevin_123 wrote:
Sadly, it might take a death for people to understand that drugs destroy lives and they should never be taken! My thoughts to the family.

if drugs destroy lives why are we all prescribed them by doctors.

do you never drink...alcohol is the worst drug and i will bet my wages you drink

[quote][p][bold]Kevin_123[/bold] wrote:
Sadly, it might take a death for people to understand that drugs destroy lives and they should never be taken! My thoughts to the family.[/p][/quote]if drugs destroy lives why are we all prescribed them by doctors.
do you never drink...alcohol is the worst drug and i will bet my wages you drinkthevoiceofreason1

I mean, it's the Echo so standards are low anyway, but this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. You don't even attempt to question this, to speak to other doctors, to do your own research?

Journalism is not regurgitating whatever story you've found online that mentions Bournemouth.

It is impossible to OD on Cannabis. End of story.

There's also this from the Daily Mail report:

"She suffered from depression and was on prescription drugs to try and deal with that although it would not appear she was taking them at the time of her death."

Sudden withdrawal of anti-depression drugs can cause a variety of symptoms, including...irregula
rities in blood pressure.

A journalist who wasn't just finishing their non-starter career on a junky local newspaper would have gone and asked about that.

What an absolute load of complete garbage.
I mean, it's the Echo so standards are low anyway, but this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. You don't even attempt to question this, to speak to other doctors, to do your own research?
Journalism is not regurgitating whatever story you've found online that mentions Bournemouth.
It is impossible to OD on Cannabis. End of story.
There's also this from the Daily Mail report:
"She suffered from depression and was on prescription drugs to try and deal with that although it would not appear she was taking them at the time of her death."
Sudden withdrawal of anti-depression drugs can cause a variety of symptoms, including...irregula
rities in blood pressure.
A journalist who wasn't just finishing their non-starter career on a junky local newspaper would have gone and asked about that.your-mum

PJ Reynolds wrote:
It is popularly believed that there has never been a death directly attributable to the use cannabis anywhere in the world - that is because of a toxic effect of cannabis on the body, Clearly, it is possible that somebody may have had an accident while intoxicated through cannabis use but that would be an indirect cause.

Science does support the principle that it is impossible to overdose on cannabis. See: http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Effects_of_

cannabis#Toxicity

Cannabis is probably the least toxic therapeutically active substance known to man. Its Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is so high as to be virtually impossible to calculate but is believed to be between 1:20000 and 1:40000. Thus if 100mg of cannabis would produce an effect, between two to four kilos (taken at once) would be fatal. This is, of course, impossible.

Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is the ratio of effective dose for 50% of users (ED50) to lethal dose for 50% of users (LD50). The TR of alcohol is 1:20. TR of heroin is 1:5.

Also, cannabis works on our body because it modulates the endocannabinoid system which consts of a network of CB1 and CB2 receptors throughout the body and endocannabinoids which are the body's natural chemicals equivalent to the chemicals in the cannabis plant. The CB1 receptor is now believed to be the most prevalent receptor in the brain but does not exist in the brain stem which controls the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. This is why, unlike opiates, alcohol or other drugs, cannabis cannot depress basic life functions to the point of death.

Many doctors are unaware of the endocannabinoid system because it was only discovered in 1988 and so has only recently been documented in medical education. It is now believed to be the most important physiological system in our body, regulating the central nervous system, immune, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and reproductive systems. This is why mankind has found cannabis such a safe and effective medicine for at least 5,000 years for such a wide variety of conditions.

Hmmm, down voted by over 150 people. Even though this comment is based on scientifically accurate facts and evidence. I'm guessing an ignoramus convention passed this way. Please educate yourselves.

[quote][p][bold]PJ Reynolds[/bold] wrote:
It is popularly believed that there has never been a death directly attributable to the use cannabis anywhere in the world - that is because of a toxic effect of cannabis on the body, Clearly, it is possible that somebody may have had an accident while intoxicated through cannabis use but that would be an indirect cause.
Indeed, the NHS publication 'A summary of the health harms of drugs' states: "No cases of fatal overdoses have been reported. No confirmed cases of human deaths". Source: Page 31, http://www.nta.nhs.u
k/uploads/healthharm
sfinal-v1.pdf
Science does support the principle that it is impossible to overdose on cannabis. See: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Effects_of_
cannabis#Toxicity
Cannabis is probably the least toxic therapeutically active substance known to man. Its Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is so high as to be virtually impossible to calculate but is believed to be between 1:20000 and 1:40000. Thus if 100mg of cannabis would produce an effect, between two to four kilos (taken at once) would be fatal. This is, of course, impossible.
Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is the ratio of effective dose for 50% of users (ED50) to lethal dose for 50% of users (LD50). The TR of alcohol is 1:20. TR of heroin is 1:5.
Also, cannabis works on our body because it modulates the endocannabinoid system which consts of a network of CB1 and CB2 receptors throughout the body and endocannabinoids which are the body's natural chemicals equivalent to the chemicals in the cannabis plant. The CB1 receptor is now believed to be the most prevalent receptor in the brain but does not exist in the brain stem which controls the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. This is why, unlike opiates, alcohol or other drugs, cannabis cannot depress basic life functions to the point of death.
Many doctors are unaware of the endocannabinoid system because it was only discovered in 1988 and so has only recently been documented in medical education. It is now believed to be the most important physiological system in our body, regulating the central nervous system, immune, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and reproductive systems. This is why mankind has found cannabis such a safe and effective medicine for at least 5,000 years for such a wide variety of conditions.[/p][/quote]Hmmm, down voted by over 150 people. Even though this comment is based on scientifically accurate facts and evidence. I'm guessing an ignoramus convention passed this way. Please educate yourselves.handytrim

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

129 down votes for a correct summary of this ridiculous propaganda story. There is no doubt that there will be an eventual retraction of the idiotic coroners verdict as it has no basis in reality. Cannabis may have been present and a factor but it simply was not the cause. There is no such thing as cannabis toxicity as cannabis is almost completely non-toxic! Educate yourselves!

[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]129 down votes for a correct summary of this ridiculous propaganda story. There is no doubt that there will be an eventual retraction of the idiotic coroners verdict as it has no basis in reality. Cannabis may have been present and a factor but it simply was not the cause. There is no such thing as cannabis toxicity as cannabis is almost completely non-toxic! Educate yourselves!handytrim

PJ Reynolds wrote:
It is popularly believed that there has never been a death directly attributable to the use cannabis anywhere in the world - that is because of a toxic effect of cannabis on the body, Clearly, it is possible that somebody may have had an accident while intoxicated through cannabis use but that would be an indirect cause.

Science does support the principle that it is impossible to overdose on cannabis. See: http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Effects_of_

cannabis#Toxicity

Cannabis is probably the least toxic therapeutically active substance known to man. Its Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is so high as to be virtually impossible to calculate but is believed to be between 1:20000 and 1:40000. Thus if 100mg of cannabis would produce an effect, between two to four kilos (taken at once) would be fatal. This is, of course, impossible.

Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is the ratio of effective dose for 50% of users (ED50) to lethal dose for 50% of users (LD50). The TR of alcohol is 1:20. TR of heroin is 1:5.

Also, cannabis works on our body because it modulates the endocannabinoid system which consts of a network of CB1 and CB2 receptors throughout the body and endocannabinoids which are the body's natural chemicals equivalent to the chemicals in the cannabis plant. The CB1 receptor is now believed to be the most prevalent receptor in the brain but does not exist in the brain stem which controls the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. This is why, unlike opiates, alcohol or other drugs, cannabis cannot depress basic life functions to the point of death.

Many doctors are unaware of the endocannabinoid system because it was only discovered in 1988 and so has only recently been documented in medical education. It is now believed to be the most important physiological system in our body, regulating the central nervous system, immune, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and reproductive systems. This is why mankind has found cannabis such a safe and effective medicine for at least 5,000 years for such a wide variety of conditions.

at least this guy knows the truth rather than spreading propaganda. to back up his case even more here is the president of the USA saying weed is no worse than alcohol
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=SH531IxjJ
3w&list=FLPWO2VkKDbr
Q2W4HL_2Na5A

[quote][p][bold]PJ Reynolds[/bold] wrote:
It is popularly believed that there has never been a death directly attributable to the use cannabis anywhere in the world - that is because of a toxic effect of cannabis on the body, Clearly, it is possible that somebody may have had an accident while intoxicated through cannabis use but that would be an indirect cause.
Indeed, the NHS publication 'A summary of the health harms of drugs' states: "No cases of fatal overdoses have been reported. No confirmed cases of human deaths". Source: Page 31, http://www.nta.nhs.u
k/uploads/healthharm
sfinal-v1.pdf
Science does support the principle that it is impossible to overdose on cannabis. See: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Effects_of_
cannabis#Toxicity
Cannabis is probably the least toxic therapeutically active substance known to man. Its Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is so high as to be virtually impossible to calculate but is believed to be between 1:20000 and 1:40000. Thus if 100mg of cannabis would produce an effect, between two to four kilos (taken at once) would be fatal. This is, of course, impossible.
Therapeutic Ratio (TR) is the ratio of effective dose for 50% of users (ED50) to lethal dose for 50% of users (LD50). The TR of alcohol is 1:20. TR of heroin is 1:5.
Also, cannabis works on our body because it modulates the endocannabinoid system which consts of a network of CB1 and CB2 receptors throughout the body and endocannabinoids which are the body's natural chemicals equivalent to the chemicals in the cannabis plant. The CB1 receptor is now believed to be the most prevalent receptor in the brain but does not exist in the brain stem which controls the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems. This is why, unlike opiates, alcohol or other drugs, cannabis cannot depress basic life functions to the point of death.
Many doctors are unaware of the endocannabinoid system because it was only discovered in 1988 and so has only recently been documented in medical education. It is now believed to be the most important physiological system in our body, regulating the central nervous system, immune, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and reproductive systems. This is why mankind has found cannabis such a safe and effective medicine for at least 5,000 years for such a wide variety of conditions.[/p][/quote]at least this guy knows the truth rather than spreading propaganda. to back up his case even more here is the president of the USA saying weed is no worse than alcohol
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=SH531IxjJ
3w&list=FLPWO2VkKDbr
Q2W4HL_2Na5Ano more propaganda

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats!

[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats!handytrim

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

She died of heart failure.

I'm totally amazed that a MD would suggest cannabis as a cause of death?

People need to be told the difference between certain 'types'.

Smoke 'resin' &amp; you're likely to be smoking commercial grade 'hash', known for being adulterated with all sorts of potentially toxic substances.

Even so called 'Skunk' can give you headaches etc if it's not flushed out etc leaving potentially toxic additives, used to increase growth etc.

This is dis information.

It's also another good reason to legalise &amp; thus sell a product that's consistent.
Same thing goes for 'MDMA' or 'E's'.

Go to Holland &amp; they will test drugs before you take them in clubs etc. Avoiding potential deaths.

Makes you wonder though, why when more &amp; more experts, police officers etc call for some kind of controlled legal framework the Government WONT LISTEN?

If your' kid is going to take drugs on a recreational level-- plenty do, surely you want them to be 'Safe as possible'?
Oh let's not forget the many millions who take LEGAL narcotics 'Mummies Little Helpers', but that's OK as it has a Govt 'Stamp' &amp; the massive drug companies supplying them!
The current laws have done NOTHING to stop drug consumption.

hes right you know

[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS.
If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]She died of heart failure.
I'm totally amazed that a MD would suggest cannabis as a cause of death?
People need to be told the difference between certain 'types'.
Smoke 'resin' & you're likely to be smoking commercial grade 'hash', known for being adulterated with all sorts of potentially toxic substances.
Even so called 'Skunk' can give you headaches etc if it's not flushed out etc leaving potentially toxic additives, used to increase growth etc.
This is dis information.
It's also another good reason to legalise & thus sell a product that's consistent.
Same thing goes for 'MDMA' or 'E's'.
Go to Holland & they will test drugs before you take them in clubs etc. Avoiding potential deaths.
Prohibition & the 'Fake War On Drugs' is ineffective .
It's a bit like USA & Prohibition...TOTAL waste & INCREASES criminal activity.
Makes you wonder though, why when more & more experts, police officers etc call for some kind of controlled legal framework the Government WONT LISTEN?
If your' kid is going to take drugs on a recreational level-- plenty do, surely you want them to be 'Safe as possible'?
Oh let's not forget the many millions who take LEGAL narcotics 'Mummies Little Helpers', but that's OK as it has a Govt 'Stamp' & the massive drug companies supplying them!
The current laws have done NOTHING to stop drug consumption.[/p][/quote]hes right you knowno more propaganda

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats!

Oh Yes you smell right,and not for the first time either !

[quote][p][bold]handytrim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats![/p][/quote]Oh Yes you smell right,and not for the first time either !nosuchluck54

I believe the verdict should be questioned & re examined as the Dr clearly states " I looked through literature...." well I'm sorry but ive looked through literature on heart surgery but that in no way would enable me to state at an inquest that someones death is due to a mistake in a heart procedure operation. The Dr. also clearly does not present any evidence that cannabis is to blame.
In another paper it was mentioned she was prescribed an anti depressant or similar which she had stopped taking. Well one of the side effects of stopping in a non controlled way is sudden death due to heart failure see mims .co.uk was this put forward as a possible cause of death?

The other possibility is that as many Dr's are in the pockets of the big pharmaceutical companies and it is known that cannabis has been found to help/cure many diseases and that cannabis cannot be patented so the big drug companies cannot make money out of it!

In the U.S. Washington & Colorado have legalized it for recreational use (as well as medical use) with about 15 other states that are going through the legislation process right now.
Cannabis in California has been legal for medicinal use since 1996 and since then 20 other states have decriminalized it for medicinal use. Uruguay have recently legalized it.
The big drug companies are running scared as if the legalization happens worldwide they will lose billions and billions of pounds in revenue as cannabis will be used instead of their toxic drugs.
Lets just look at cancer treatments, (cannabis has been found to help many diseases/ailments) radiation and chemotherapy are toxic poisons. look at Japan and what is happening there right now with the radiation leaks. Yet if you are diagnosed with cancer you may be prescribed treatment by radiation or chemo which poisons you and does untold damage to you. But in some documented cases when these treatments have failed and the medical system has said they can do no more cannabis has been used to treat cancer and has reduced or totally eradicated the tumors. search Rick Simpson "run from the cure"

Don't believe all the hype that cannabis is evil. In my opinion we need to wake up to the fact that there are many naturally occurring treatments that can be used instead of dangerous toxic pharmaceutical drugs that these companies make billions from. But being a plant that occurs naturally these companies cannot make money from them thus the medical research and trials will never be conducted by them.

First of all my condolences to this poor women's family.
I believe the verdict should be questioned & re examined as the Dr clearly states " I looked through literature...." well I'm sorry but ive looked through literature on heart surgery but that in no way would enable me to state at an inquest that someones death is due to a mistake in a heart procedure operation. The Dr. also clearly does not present any evidence that cannabis is to blame.
In another paper it was mentioned she was prescribed an anti depressant or similar which she had stopped taking. Well one of the side effects of stopping in a non controlled way is sudden death due to heart failure see mims .co.uk was this put forward as a possible cause of death?
The other possibility is that as many Dr's are in the pockets of the big pharmaceutical companies and it is known that cannabis has been found to help/cure many diseases and that cannabis cannot be patented so the big drug companies cannot make money out of it!
In the U.S. Washington & Colorado have legalized it for recreational use (as well as medical use) with about 15 other states that are going through the legislation process right now.
Cannabis in California has been legal for medicinal use since 1996 and since then 20 other states have decriminalized it for medicinal use. Uruguay have recently legalized it.
The big drug companies are running scared as if the legalization happens worldwide they will lose billions and billions of pounds in revenue as cannabis will be used instead of their toxic drugs.
Lets just look at cancer treatments, (cannabis has been found to help many diseases/ailments) radiation and chemotherapy are toxic poisons. look at Japan and what is happening there right now with the radiation leaks. Yet if you are diagnosed with cancer you may be prescribed treatment by radiation or chemo which poisons you and does untold damage to you. But in some documented cases when these treatments have failed and the medical system has said they can do no more cannabis has been used to treat cancer and has reduced or totally eradicated the tumors. search Rick Simpson "run from the cure"
Don't believe all the hype that cannabis is evil. In my opinion we need to wake up to the fact that there are many naturally occurring treatments that can be used instead of dangerous toxic pharmaceutical drugs that these companies make billions from. But being a plant that occurs naturally these companies cannot make money from them thus the medical research and trials will never be conducted by them.jsdorset

GAHmusic wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all

30,000 deaths per year?, seems a bit high, care to provide a link?

Yea you're quite right 8748 in 2011

Though to be fair to you that does not include 'death by misadventure'. That is sure to take it up to your original estimation,

I say 'misadventure' but we can all think of many (many) causes of death linked to the consumption of alcohol.......

And for balance my drug of choice is alcohol and nothing else.

[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote:
The reason canabis is ilegal with one apparent death and alcohol is legal with 30,000 deaths a year in the UK alone has to be that the rule makers all like drinking , there is absolutely no rational reason at all[/p][/quote]30,000 deaths per year?, seems a bit high, care to provide a link?[/p][/quote]Yea you're quite right 8748 in 2011[/p][/quote]Though to be fair to you that does not include 'death by misadventure'. That is sure to take it up to your original estimation,
I say 'misadventure' but we can all think of many (many) causes of death linked to the consumption of alcohol.......
And for balance my drug of choice is alcohol and nothing else.scrumpyjack

complete and utter rubbish....i hope this "news paper" will reflect on this article and feel suitably stupid....shame on your ignorance for printing such garbage.....and as for the gp.....unfit to practice....cant believe what i've just read.....fools all round

complete and utter rubbish....i hope this "news paper" will reflect on this article and feel suitably stupid....shame on your ignorance for printing such garbage.....and as for the gp.....unfit to practice....cant believe what i've just read.....fools all roundsoizic

High Treason wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.

Quite right ..... at the end of the day they are all drug addicts with all that goes along with being a drug addict. If it were that good it would be on the shelves of our local supermarket ... but no it is illegal and hence bought/sold with all the attached problems of users and dealers.

you dont know what you are talking about.......i dont smoke it btw

[quote][p][bold]JustForPoole[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote:
Whatever the reason I notice how desperate cannabis addicts are to dispute anything that destroys their myth that it is harmless. It is a mind altering drug and as such it may alter the natural rhythms of the heart, breathing etc. Do some research on the subject.[/p][/quote]Quite right ..... at the end of the day they are all drug addicts with all that goes along with being a drug addict. If it were that good it would be on the shelves of our local supermarket ... but no it is illegal and hence bought/sold with all the attached problems of users and dealers.[/p][/quote]you dont know what you are talking about.......i dont smoke it btwsoizic

Phixer wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate

ver'.

It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.

Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.

totally agree

[quote][p][bold]SteveSim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate
ver'.[/p][/quote]It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.
Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.[/p][/quote]totally agreesoizic

Phixer wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate

ver'.

It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.

Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.

totally agree

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with legalisation of all drugs, to say that nobody has ever been put off by the fact that cannabis is illegal is clearly wrong.

[quote][p][bold]soizic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SteveSim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate
ver'.[/p][/quote]It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.
Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.[/p][/quote]totally agree[/p][/quote]Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with legalisation of all drugs, to say that nobody has ever been put off by the fact that cannabis is illegal is clearly wrong.FNS-man

simcal wrote:
Everything on this planet can be toxic in the right quantity, including water.
Rip

True. One of the moan cancer causing chemicals is oxygen. Can't live without it but every breath is potentially killing us.

Agree about toxins in everything including chocolate, which can kill if a substantial amount is consumed. If a dog is given chocolate it can kill the animal. Death by Chocolate has a real meaning to the word.

[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote:
Everything on this planet can be toxic in the right quantity, including water.
Rip[/p][/quote]True. One of the moan cancer causing chemicals is oxygen. Can't live without it but every breath is potentially killing us.[/p][/quote]Agree about toxins in everything including chocolate, which can kill if a substantial amount is consumed. If a dog is given chocolate it can kill the animal. Death by Chocolate has a real meaning to the word.constant gardener

I've been smoking cannabis for about 50 years. I've never head of such BS as cannabis poisoning. Brits are the only people in the world who can smoke a joint and claim a plethora of mental health issues. The poor young woman died of something, most probably heart failure.

I've been smoking cannabis for about 50 years. I've never head of such BS as cannabis poisoning. Brits are the only people in the world who can smoke a joint and claim a plethora of mental health issues. The poor young woman died of something, most probably heart failure.srbmsun

The 'likes' on this thread are clearly manipulated and therefore entirely meaningless.

Strangely, wherever the rabid prohibitionist 'Dr Martin' engages in such a discussion about cannabis, similar huge and obviously dishonest numbers of 'like' and 'unlikes' appear.

I draw this to the moderators attention as it makes your website a laughing stock.

The 'likes' on this thread are clearly manipulated and therefore entirely meaningless.
Strangely, wherever the rabid prohibitionist 'Dr Martin' engages in such a discussion about cannabis, similar huge and obviously dishonest numbers of 'like' and 'unlikes' appear.
I draw this to the moderators attention as it makes your website a laughing stock.PJ Reynolds

srbmsun wrote:
I've been smoking cannabis for about 50 years. I've never head of such BS as cannabis poisoning. Brits are the only people in the world who can smoke a joint and claim a plethora of mental health issues. The poor young woman died of something, most probably heart failure.

yes ...as it says heart failure brought on by the effects of the illegal substance

[quote][p][bold]srbmsun[/bold] wrote:
I've been smoking cannabis for about 50 years. I've never head of such BS as cannabis poisoning. Brits are the only people in the world who can smoke a joint and claim a plethora of mental health issues. The poor young woman died of something, most probably heart failure.[/p][/quote]yes ...as it says heart failure brought on by the effects of the illegal substanceJustForPoole

Phixer wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate

ver'.

It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.

Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.

totally agree

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with legalisation of all drugs, to say that nobody has ever been put off by the fact that cannabis is illegal is clearly wrong.

He said nobody who 'uses it'. So, if they have used it they obviously the fact it was illegal had not stopped them.

He did not say nobody has been put of using it because it is illegal.

[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]soizic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SteveSim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate
ver'.[/p][/quote]It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.
Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.[/p][/quote]totally agree[/p][/quote]Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with legalisation of all drugs, to say that nobody has ever been put off by the fact that cannabis is illegal is clearly wrong.[/p][/quote]He said nobody who 'uses it'. So, if they have used it they obviously the fact it was illegal had not stopped them.
He did not say nobody has been put of using it because it is illegal.scrumpyjack

PJ Reynolds wrote:
The 'likes' on this thread are clearly manipulated and therefore entirely meaningless.

Strangely, wherever the rabid prohibitionist 'Dr Martin' engages in such a discussion about cannabis, similar huge and obviously dishonest numbers of 'like' and 'unlikes' appear.

I draw this to the moderators attention as it makes your website a laughing stock.

I agree and had noticed the same.

[quote][p][bold]PJ Reynolds[/bold] wrote:
The 'likes' on this thread are clearly manipulated and therefore entirely meaningless.
Strangely, wherever the rabid prohibitionist 'Dr Martin' engages in such a discussion about cannabis, similar huge and obviously dishonest numbers of 'like' and 'unlikes' appear.
I draw this to the moderators attention as it makes your website a laughing stock.[/p][/quote]I agree and had noticed the same.scrumpyjack

blackdog1 wrote:
Why are there so many saddos on here going on and on how good cannabis is? It's the the start of a slippery slope.............

It's that black and white is it?

How do you spell naive....

[quote][p][bold]blackdog1[/bold] wrote:
Why are there so many saddos on here going on and on how good cannabis is? It's the the start of a slippery slope.............[/p][/quote]It's that black and white is it?
How do you spell naive....scrumpyjack

blackdog1 wrote:
Why are there so many saddos on here going on and on how good cannabis is? It's the the start of a slippery slope.............

It's that black and white is it?

How do you spell naive....

It's spelt "cannabis"..........

[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]blackdog1[/bold] wrote:
Why are there so many saddos on here going on and on how good cannabis is? It's the the start of a slippery slope.............[/p][/quote]It's that black and white is it?
How do you spell naive....[/p][/quote]It's spelt "cannabis"..........blackdog1

Seems there are so many thicko drug users on here who think they know so much more than the majority of the rest of the world ... about 99%+ of the world see the failings of the misuse of drugs ... but about 10 Bournemouth residents seem to know better ..... the mind boggles (without cannabis) ???

Seems there are so many thicko drug users on here who think they know so much more than the majority of the rest of the world ... about 99%+ of the world see the failings of the misuse of drugs ... but about 10 Bournemouth residents seem to know better ..... the mind boggles (without cannabis) ???JustForPoole

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats!

Even though it's lovely to see over a thousand plus votes on my comment (jk) I'm with you about the rats. I looked at it a few days ago and it was on the minuses and I've come back today to find it's changed quite dramatically. The Echo should sort out the system because I don't think a thousand people passed through in 48 hours and voted it up.

I stand by my comment though. Reading information on the internet (which is not the most valid of sources due to the potential for it to be BS) doesn't make people experts. We can't even see a lot of the medical information presented without requesting the report. The echo takes a tiny snapshot of what was said and reports it to gain maximum hysteria...which has worked pretty well this time.

[quote][p][bold]handytrim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats![/p][/quote]Even though it's lovely to see over a thousand plus votes on my comment (jk) I'm with you about the rats. I looked at it a few days ago and it was on the minuses and I've come back today to find it's changed quite dramatically. The Echo should sort out the system because I don't think a thousand people passed through in 48 hours and voted it up.
I stand by my comment though. Reading information on the internet (which is not the most valid of sources due to the potential for it to be BS) doesn't make people experts. We can't even see a lot of the medical information presented without requesting the report. The echo takes a tiny snapshot of what was said and reports it to gain maximum hysteria...which has worked pretty well this time.rozmister

I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.

I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.Tango Charlie

Tango Charlie wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.

seconded. the hypocrisy of the pro dope lobby is breathtaking.

my condolences to the young lady's family and a size 10 boot in the crutch to all those advocating legitmitising their dirty dependancies

[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.[/p][/quote]seconded. the hypocrisy of the pro dope lobby is breathtaking.
my condolences to the young lady's family and a size 10 boot in the crutch to all those advocating legitmitising their dirty dependanciesprofondo asbo

Tango Charlie wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.

It can be found on prescription from the Dutch government's official producer Bedrocan BV.

Many UK doctors are now writing prescriptions for Bedrocan but the Home Office refuses to issue import licences. Judicial review proceedings have been commenced against the Home Secretary.

[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.[/p][/quote]It can be found on prescription from the Dutch government's official producer Bedrocan BV.
Many UK doctors are now writing prescriptions for Bedrocan but the Home Office refuses to issue import licences. Judicial review proceedings have been commenced against the Home Secretary.PJ Reynolds

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats!

The scores were manipulated on this story before friday morning , I suspect Bournehammer68 as the 2nd comment had a score of +150 3rd comment had -61 and many other comments were obviously skewed in favour of those advocating a pro pot stance.

[quote][p][bold]handytrim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]Over a thousand (???) votes for a completely ridiculous reply. Why would someone with an ability to read scientifically based facts and evidence need a medical/scientific qualification to have an educated opinion! I smell a thousand rats![/p][/quote]The scores were manipulated on this story before friday morning , I suspect Bournehammer68 as the 2nd comment had a score of +150 3rd comment had -61 and many other comments were obviously skewed in favour of those advocating a pro pot stance.Dr Martin

Phixer wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate

ver'.

It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.

Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.

totally agree

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with legalisation of all drugs, to say that nobody has ever been put off by the fact that cannabis is illegal is clearly wrong.

He said nobody who 'uses it'. So, if they have used it they obviously the fact it was illegal had not stopped them.

He did not say nobody has been put of using it because it is illegal.

Well then it's a completely pointless statement. And also probably wrong. You're saying no-one who currently smokes cannabis has ever not smoked cannabis at any point because it's illegal? If so I think you're wrong.

[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]soizic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SteveSim[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote:
It says much about our civilised - sic - society that so many people argue in favour of drugs, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc., in order to be 'happy/content/whate
ver'.[/p][/quote]It say much more about our 'civilised' society that scientific research is being ignored by our government. They've even sacked the people they hired to advise them-when they didn't like the recommendations. It's idiocracy to the enth degree.
Here's a thought. Nobody who uses cannabis has ever been put off by the fact that it is illegal. It does mean that we have to deal with people. such as 'street' dealers, who we'd rather not. Criminalising cannabis does nothing but pit ordinary citizens against the legal system. It solves nothing and causes more problems. If you'd prefer to go on like this, it says a lot about your character.[/p][/quote]totally agree[/p][/quote]Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with legalisation of all drugs, to say that nobody has ever been put off by the fact that cannabis is illegal is clearly wrong.[/p][/quote]He said nobody who 'uses it'. So, if they have used it they obviously the fact it was illegal had not stopped them.
He did not say nobody has been put of using it because it is illegal.[/p][/quote]Well then it's a completely pointless statement. And also probably wrong. You're saying no-one who currently smokes cannabis has ever not smoked cannabis at any point because it's illegal? If so I think you're wrong.FNS-man

the "merits" of prescribed medicinal cannabis are completely irrelevant to this thread. none of the dependants here are going to put down their joints if prescribed medicinal cannabis suddenly becomes available.

the "merits" of prescribed medicinal cannabis are completely irrelevant to this thread. none of the dependants here are going to put down their joints if prescribed medicinal cannabis suddenly becomes available.profondo asbo

We now have had comments by Peter Reynolds /Owen Richards and Babs Stanley recently is this a concerted effort from CLEAR to make up ground lost to the CVF420?

You have to admit it Peter you have been fairly quiet the past 6 months or so

We now have had comments by Peter Reynolds /Owen Richards and Babs Stanley recently is this a concerted effort from CLEAR to make up ground lost to the CVF420?
You have to admit it Peter you have been fairly quiet the past 6 months or soDr Martin

Tango Charlie wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.

Total crap. Provide proof or shut up.

[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.[/p][/quote]Total crap. Provide proof or shut up.your-mum

Tango Charlie wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.

Total crap. Provide proof or shut up.

do apologize, but it is true that I did enjoy the debate. I have no proof of that.

Should you be taking about providing evidence of one my other sentences, than I can only reiterate what I have said. For every bit of evidence I could provide, either pro or con, someone else will provide evidence against my argument. Therefore it would be pointless to attempt to write a complete scientific paper in a local rag.
It is hard to find an unbiased opinion in amongst all the published rubbish out there, so I biased my view on an old report I read while working in a G2 Military Intelligence unit. I found the report to be the only unbiased one around.

For example:
I could quote from The website of Allan Frankel, MD, a Santa Monica, California medical marijuana doctor who specializes in high Cannabinoid, low THC varieties who states that there is no gmo cannabis!
Or:
A 95-page 2009 paper by Sam R. Zwenger is titled, “The Biotechnology of Cannabis sativa”. Zwenger gives complete instructions for marijuana tissue culture and genetic modification.
Or:
Robert C. Clarke, in his book, Marijuana Botany: The propagation and breeding of distinctive cannabis explains, “Many clandestine cultivators have started polyploid strains with colchicine…. (Colchicine) treated plants showed a 166-250% increase in THC…possibly colchicine or the resulting polyploidy interferes with cannabinoid bio-genesis to favour THC.”

Careful study of any of these sources shows a clear divide on which side of the argument the authors support. So I took my view from the only source that I knew was non-judgemental.

[quote][p][bold]your-mum[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.[/p][/quote]Total crap. Provide proof or shut up.[/p][/quote]do apologize, but it is true that I did enjoy the debate. I have no proof of that.
Should you be taking about providing evidence of one my other sentences, than I can only reiterate what I have said. For every bit of evidence I could provide, either pro or con, someone else will provide evidence against my argument. Therefore it would be pointless to attempt to write a complete scientific paper in a local rag.
It is hard to find an unbiased opinion in amongst all the published rubbish out there, so I biased my view on an old report I read while working in a G2 Military Intelligence unit. I found the report to be the only unbiased one around.
For example:
I could quote from The website of Allan Frankel, MD, a Santa Monica, California medical marijuana doctor who specializes in high Cannabinoid, low THC varieties who states that there is no gmo cannabis!
Or:
A 95-page 2009 paper by Sam R. Zwenger is titled, “The Biotechnology of Cannabis sativa”. Zwenger gives complete instructions for marijuana tissue culture and genetic modification.
Or:
Robert C. Clarke, in his book, Marijuana Botany: The propagation and breeding of distinctive cannabis explains, “Many clandestine cultivators have started polyploid strains with colchicine…. (Colchicine) treated plants showed a 166-250% increase in THC…possibly colchicine or the resulting polyploidy interferes with cannabinoid bio-genesis to favour THC.”
Careful study of any of these sources shows a clear divide on which side of the argument the authors support. So I took my view from the only source that I knew was non-judgemental.Tango Charlie

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

Probably the same as yourself which accounts for your usual smug,arrogant comments on things you know little or nothing about

worth a second post?

I never claimed to be an expert in science and/or medicine but that's why I wouldn't make wild statements about this story. It's called being open minded and realising that when a newspaper reports a story they pull out the facts that cause the most outrage and run with them rather than give all the relevant information. Try it some time.

No don't, anyone advocating substance abuse should look at the harm it causes to all around! I do offer my sincere condolences to all that knew this young lady and genuinely hope that whatever went on in her life to travel down the path which ended her short-life does not affect anyone else so adversely that they feel compelled to follow

[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]Probably the same as yourself which accounts for your usual smug,arrogant comments on things you know little or nothing about[/p][/quote]worth a second post?[/p][/quote]I never claimed to be an expert in science and/or medicine but that's why I wouldn't make wild statements about this story. It's called being open minded and realising that when a newspaper reports a story they pull out the facts that cause the most outrage and run with them rather than give all the relevant information. Try it some time.[/p][/quote]No don't, anyone advocating substance abuse should look at the harm it causes to all around! I do offer my sincere condolences to all that knew this young lady and genuinely hope that whatever went on in her life to travel down the path which ended her short-life does not affect anyone else so adversely that they feel compelled to followNarwhal

Tango Charlie wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.

Total crap. Provide proof or shut up.

do apologize, but it is true that I did enjoy the debate. I have no proof of that.

Should you be taking about providing evidence of one my other sentences, than I can only reiterate what I have said. For every bit of evidence I could provide, either pro or con, someone else will provide evidence against my argument. Therefore it would be pointless to attempt to write a complete scientific paper in a local rag.
It is hard to find an unbiased opinion in amongst all the published rubbish out there, so I biased my view on an old report I read while working in a G2 Military Intelligence unit. I found the report to be the only unbiased one around.

For example:
I could quote from The website of Allan Frankel, MD, a Santa Monica, California medical marijuana doctor who specializes in high Cannabinoid, low THC varieties who states that there is no gmo cannabis!
Or:
A 95-page 2009 paper by Sam R. Zwenger is titled, “The Biotechnology of Cannabis sativa”. Zwenger gives complete instructions for marijuana tissue culture and genetic modification.
Or:
Robert C. Clarke, in his book, Marijuana Botany: The propagation and breeding of distinctive cannabis explains, “Many clandestine cultivators have started polyploid strains with colchicine…. (Colchicine) treated plants showed a 166-250% increase in THC…possibly colchicine or the resulting polyploidy interferes with cannabinoid bio-genesis to favour THC.”

Careful study of any of these sources shows a clear divide on which side of the argument the authors support. So I took my view from the only source that I knew was non-judgemental.

First of all I offer my deepest condolences for this family's loss.

I would like to say that anyone who has ever done even the smallest amount of research on cannabis will very quickly find out that it is one of most helpful drugs out there. Leading experts have proved over and over again that the medical and therapeutic uses of cannabis are far reaching and side effects are minimal. Why do you think that it has been legalised for medical use in some states in America and now states are pushing to have this expanded to a complete legalization? Because their government CANNOT hide the fact that cannabis is actually better for you than so many pharmaceutical drugs produced. We have been lied to for decades. Politicians have pushed and pushed this idea of cannabis being 'evil' only to boost their own careers. If cannabis was finally legalised (which I really believe will happen) it could be regulated and taxed to provide a much needed boost to the world economy. People who are anti-cannabis need to be educated in the real facts. How many people die EVERY DAY from legal substances like cigarettes, alcohol and prescription medication? This is the first reported case in years of someone dying from cannabis and to be frank I don't believe it. But don't take my word for it. There are hundreds of studies from world renowned scientists, doctors and healthcare groups that show that cannabis is not only relatively safe, but is a much preferable alternative to a lot of the prescription drugs out there. Before forming an opinion based on sensationalist news stories and politician soap-boxing, people should educate themselves. There are many links provided by other commenter's to reputable sources which will support our position. So before denouncing cannabis as the devil etc, just go and look for yourselves and then make an educated decision. In my opinion cannabis should be legalised and regulated the same way cigarettes and alcohol are and the decision to use cannabis should be left to the individual in the same way. If the government decided to make it illegal go to the pub and have a beer there would be bloody riots. Cigarette related illnesses kill thousands a year, but it's up to the individual to decide if they want to smoke or not. It makes no logical sense at all to make it illegal to use a drug which, compared to cigarettes and alcohol, is virtually harmless.

[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]your-mum[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote:
I enjoyed the debate, my condolences to the family. I would argue against canabis. It is not the same stuff that was available in the 60's. It has been genetically modified and is supplied by people who want to make money . For every argument for it you will find another against it. It amazes me that people who avoid GM wheat will buy it without question. If it could be found on prescription and grown properly I would probably be for it.[/p][/quote]Total crap. Provide proof or shut up.[/p][/quote]do apologize, but it is true that I did enjoy the debate. I have no proof of that.
Should you be taking about providing evidence of one my other sentences, than I can only reiterate what I have said. For every bit of evidence I could provide, either pro or con, someone else will provide evidence against my argument. Therefore it would be pointless to attempt to write a complete scientific paper in a local rag.
It is hard to find an unbiased opinion in amongst all the published rubbish out there, so I biased my view on an old report I read while working in a G2 Military Intelligence unit. I found the report to be the only unbiased one around.
For example:
I could quote from The website of Allan Frankel, MD, a Santa Monica, California medical marijuana doctor who specializes in high Cannabinoid, low THC varieties who states that there is no gmo cannabis!
Or:
A 95-page 2009 paper by Sam R. Zwenger is titled, “The Biotechnology of Cannabis sativa”. Zwenger gives complete instructions for marijuana tissue culture and genetic modification.
Or:
Robert C. Clarke, in his book, Marijuana Botany: The propagation and breeding of distinctive cannabis explains, “Many clandestine cultivators have started polyploid strains with colchicine…. (Colchicine) treated plants showed a 166-250% increase in THC…possibly colchicine or the resulting polyploidy interferes with cannabinoid bio-genesis to favour THC.”
Careful study of any of these sources shows a clear divide on which side of the argument the authors support. So I took my view from the only source that I knew was non-judgemental.[/p][/quote]First of all I offer my deepest condolences for this family's loss.
I would like to say that anyone who has ever done even the smallest amount of research on cannabis will very quickly find out that it is one of most helpful drugs out there. Leading experts have proved over and over again that the medical and therapeutic uses of cannabis are far reaching and side effects are minimal. Why do you think that it has been legalised for medical use in some states in America and now states are pushing to have this expanded to a complete legalization? Because their government CANNOT hide the fact that cannabis is actually better for you than so many pharmaceutical drugs produced. We have been lied to for decades. Politicians have pushed and pushed this idea of cannabis being 'evil' only to boost their own careers. If cannabis was finally legalised (which I really believe will happen) it could be regulated and taxed to provide a much needed boost to the world economy. People who are anti-cannabis need to be educated in the real facts. How many people die EVERY DAY from legal substances like cigarettes, alcohol and prescription medication? This is the first reported case in years of someone dying from cannabis and to be frank I don't believe it. But don't take my word for it. There are hundreds of studies from world renowned scientists, doctors and healthcare groups that show that cannabis is not only relatively safe, but is a much preferable alternative to a lot of the prescription drugs out there. Before forming an opinion based on sensationalist news stories and politician soap-boxing, people should educate themselves. There are many links provided by other commenter's to reputable sources which will support our position. So before denouncing cannabis as the devil etc, just go and look for yourselves and then make an educated decision. In my opinion cannabis should be legalised and regulated the same way cigarettes and alcohol are and the decision to use cannabis should be left to the individual in the same way. If the government decided to make it illegal go to the pub and have a beer there would be bloody riots. Cigarette related illnesses kill thousands a year, but it's up to the individual to decide if they want to smoke or not. It makes no logical sense at all to make it illegal to use a drug which, compared to cigarettes and alcohol, is virtually harmless.420chocolate

Yes people if you want to know more about that wonderful herb, cannabis then take a look at these

http://www.talktofra
nk.com/drug/cannabis

http://www.nhs.uk/Li
vewell/drugs/Pages/C
annabisdangers.aspx

Yes people if you want to know more about that wonderful herb, cannabis then take a look at these
http://www.talktofra
nk.com/drug/cannabis
http://www.nhs.uk/Li
vewell/drugs/Pages/C
annabisdangers.aspxDr Martin

sarahlois wrote:
I attend the same church as Gemma, she was a beautiful woman who loved her kids very much. You could see God's love in her eyes. The fact is she is gone and her children have lost their mummy. How she died is not the issue here. RIP Gembells x

I knew her too , god bless her, I belie she died from antidepressants, but of course we aint going to be told that as pharmaceticals would be left without customers

[quote][p][bold]sarahlois[/bold] wrote:
I attend the same church as Gemma, she was a beautiful woman who loved her kids very much. You could see God's love in her eyes. The fact is she is gone and her children have lost their mummy. How she died is not the issue here. RIP Gembells x[/p][/quote]I knew her too , god bless her, I belie she died from antidepressants, but of course we aint going to be told that as pharmaceticals would be left without customersherwhoknowsit

Bournehammer68 wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job!

What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?

All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.

No one has died of smoking before, they die of conditions brought on by smoking such as lung cancer. When their death is recorded it doesn't say smoking is the cause of death although the coroner may say it was a contributing factor. Does that mean smoking isn't deadly?

Erm... this article doesn't say she died as a result of conditions brought on by smoking cannabis. It says she died of cannabis poisoning.
And that's kind of what we're disputing here...

Precisely, there is no such thing as cannabis "poisoning", and saying that it is the cause of her death is even more ridiculous. Also, lung cancer is commonly bought on by excessive tobacco consumption, and tobacco also happens to be the substance that is mixed with cannabis in order to be smoked. Why do you think it is used as a medicine in some parts of the united states? Because with moderate use there are no harmful effects. And before anyone says - SEE, THERE ARE HARMFUL EFFECTS - anything in excess is bad for you. Alcohol, tobacco, drugs even those 'helpful' prescription drugs....

[quote][p][bold]DaveStalker[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Wilkins111[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Bournehammer68[/bold] wrote:
Absolute sensationalist BS. If she died of cannabis toxicity she is the first person in the world ever! the Dr who attended should be struck off as they are clearly not up to the job![/p][/quote]What science/medical qualifications do you hold to be making such a judgement?[/p][/quote]All you have to do is Google the history of cannabis consumption that shows that nobody in the history of its recreational use has died. You don't medical qualifications to look up known FACTS.[/p][/quote]No one has died of smoking before, they die of conditions brought on by smoking such as lung cancer. When their death is recorded it doesn't say smoking is the cause of death although the coroner may say it was a contributing factor. Does that mean smoking isn't deadly?[/p][/quote]Erm... this article doesn't say she died as a result of conditions brought on by smoking cannabis. It says she died of cannabis poisoning.
And that's kind of what we're disputing here...[/p][/quote]Precisely, there is no such thing as cannabis "poisoning", and saying that it is the cause of her death is even more ridiculous. Also, lung cancer is commonly bought on by excessive tobacco consumption, and tobacco also happens to be the substance that is mixed with cannabis in order to be smoked. Why do you think it is used as a medicine in some parts of the united states? Because with moderate use there are no harmful effects. And before anyone says - SEE, THERE ARE HARMFUL EFFECTS - anything in excess is bad for you. Alcohol, tobacco, drugs even those 'helpful' prescription drugs....Wilkins111

Never in the Recorded History of Cannabis Abuse, Has it been found that Cannabis can be the Cause of any Related Deaths. if the human has a defect in their body the usage of cannabis can put strain on that defect, but alone cannabis can NOT Directly Cause the Death of a Human.

and by this i mean a Human Can not Induce Enough THC into their system, to Cause loss of life.
-----------------
To me this sounds like the coroner found it Easier to Blame the drug rather than work on this case due to his Morals and Opinions on or around drug users.
----------------
BAD MAN - CSI I Think lol.
----------------
and by the sounds of it im surprised the coroner found his way to the scene considering his Moral Compass is totally messed up. lol

[quote][p][bold]glendower2909[/bold] wrote:
Very sad for all involved. Rip[/p][/quote]Indeed, RIP, And sorry to those affected here.
Just a Quick Note.
Never in the Recorded History of Cannabis Abuse, Has it been found that Cannabis can be the Cause of any Related Deaths. if the human has a defect in their body the usage of cannabis can put strain on that defect, but alone cannabis can NOT Directly Cause the Death of a Human.
and by this i mean a Human Can not Induce Enough THC into their system, to Cause loss of life.
-----------------
To me this sounds like the coroner found it Easier to Blame the drug rather than work on this case due to his Morals and Opinions on or around drug users.
----------------
BAD MAN - CSI I Think lol.
----------------
and by the sounds of it im surprised the coroner found his way to the scene considering his Moral Compass is totally messed up. lolgoldrang